Hagel Has a Problem With Christian Zionists, Not With Jews

Opposition to Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense is focusing on his on-the-record criticisms of Israeli policy. Beneath those criticisms, Hagel’s opponents claim, lies his alleged distaste for “the Jews”. The convicted liar Elliott Abrams has gone so far as to describe Hagel as “bigoted against Jews”. Bret Stephens echoes the charge (link behind paywall), which can be found in even coarser versions around the internet.

If these accusations had any basis, you’d expect Jewish organizations to work against Hagel’s nomination. For the most part, however, they’ve refused to do so. Arguably the most prominent group, the Anti-Defamation League, is holding its tongue. The more hawkish American Jewish Committee is urging that Hagel’s nomination be considered carefully, but is not committing itself to opposition. And the head of the Orthodox Union’s Institute for Public Policy, Nathan Diament, has signalled a non-confrontational approach in public statements and on Twitter.

So “the Jews” can hardly be said to oppose Hagel, although many individual Jews clearly do. Where does organized resistance to his nomination come from? As Jennifer Rubin observes, it’s largely a product of the Christian Zionist movement. In fact, two of the most active sources of opposition are Christians United for Israel and Concerned Women for America. The leadership of both groups is inspired by eschatology based on the Book of Revelation, according to which the resettlement of the Jews in the whole of the Biblical holy land is a prelude to the return of Christ.

This divergence between the Jews as an organized community and of Christian supporters of Israel movement reflects an amazing transformation of America’s relation to Israel. Until the 1990s, the “pro-Israel” lobby was rooted in the activism and financial support of American Jews. Hagel was alluding to this fact when he used the rather unpleasant term “Jewish lobby” to describe American supporters of Israel.

Since then, however, American Jews have adopted more dovish views. In addition to their overwhelming support for a two-state solution, younger American Jews are less likely than their parents to see Israel as the centerpiece of Jewish identity. As a result, Jews are probably more likely than other Americans to support the foreign policy positions for which Hagel has been criticized (similar views are fairly common on the Israeli left). In any case, they voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, despite extensive and expensive efforts to shift Jewish votes into the Republican column.

At the same time, Christian Zionists have mobilized in favor of unconditional support for Israel’s increasingly hawkish governments. In addition to organizing hundreds of thousands of voters, groups like Christians United for Israel have cultivated links with Israeli politicians and activists who defend the occupation, as well as a relatively small clique of American Jewish hawks. Matt Yglesias describes the result as the “Post-Jewish Pro-Israel Movement“, which replaces the old “Jewish Lobby” with an alliance between millenarian Christians and the Israeli right, in which American Jews are little more than figureheads.

I agree with Yglesias that the Post-Jewish Pro-Israel Movement is bad both for Israel and for America. Nevertheless, it is extremely influential–and serves as the real base of opposition to Hagel. Hagel does have an “Israel” problem. But it’s a mainly a problem with Christian Zionists and their figureheads.

Update: I have been informed by a CUFI representative that the group rejects my characterization of their motives. They encourage readers to consider this op-ed by John Hagee as a statement of their principles.

Matt Yglesias describes the result as the “Post-Jewish Pro-Israel Movement“, which replaces the old “Jewish Lobby” with an alliance between millenarian Christians and the Israeli right, in which American Jews are little more than figureheads.

Those “figureheads” still donate gargantuan sums to politicians of both major parties and associated PACs, as well as activist organizations such as AIPAC and ZOA, and the various Zionist think tanks. Attendance at the annual AIPAC shindig is de rigeur for presidential aspirants of both parties, as well as literally hundreds of members of Congress and even state officials whose duties have no connection to foreign policy. By comparison, neither Bush nor Obama has attended any CUFI (founded in 2006) national conference (Bush sent a message in writing), relatively few (compared to AIPAC) congresscritters attend (and hardly any Democrats other than Lieberman), and it is mostly avoided by Republican presidential candidates (McCain and Gingrich attended, though before their respective candidacies, and Romney skipped the 2012 gathering). Christian Zionists do not set editorial policy for major MSM news outlets; they are not the main agitators for the release of Jonathan Pollard; they were not main force behind the sinking of the Charles Freeman nomination.

It is fine and necessary to talk about the damaging influence of Christian Zionists, but such a discussion should not be used as a politically correct smokescreen obscuring the still enormous and enormously damaging influence of hawkish Jewish Zionists (liberals and Democrats as well as neocon Republicans) on the American body politic.

Actually it was Jewish journalists at magazines like Commentary who began this crusade against Hegel. However, as Jeffrey Goldberg put it: The people who run AIPAC aren’t stupid: They know that if they foment strong opposition to Hagel on the Hill, they will earn President Obama’s enmity, whether or not they succeed or fail.

So they may opt to play it safe. As the commenter JimmyBobby puts it at the Contentions blog: Exactly, you start the fight, you sling the mud, THEN you stand aside and let your stand-ins do the real dirty work.Link

So is the forecast hard questioning of Hagel’s appointment coming due to questions of his positions on the security of Israel, or of the US? Since it seems likely he will be appointed, are those hard questions just political theater? Political theater for who? Probably more evangelical voters than jewish ones. I doubt if a case could be made that Hagel dislikes evangelicals, but look forward to the theater. Ever watch a republican eat pie. For some reason they don’t want anybody else to have even the crumbs from their piece of pie, and usually they just shove their face into the whole thing.

Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League,
“Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community’s friends of Israel. His record relating to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling. The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.”

But the problem is, Mr. Goldman, the two-state solution is now resembling the Bantustans first offered by apartheid South Africa which has something to do with Tutu saying racism in Israel against Arabs is worse than racism was against blacks in apartheid SA.

But I couldn’t get you to go along with a One State solution wherein both rabbinical law and Shariah law
are ruled out and the right of return of all Pals implemented, could I?

Why is it the Christian Zionists get their way on Israel policy but not on abortion? Hmmmmm?
Yes they are powerful, but more of a factor is, for the past thirty or more years, more powerful liberal (on everything else) Jews maintaining a hardline on Israel.

I’m not sure I understand why the expression “Jewish Lobby” is so distasteful. Doesn’t Israel claim to be a (the) Jewish state—they’ve got that big six pointed star on their flag and everything. Jews are automatically entitled to Israeli citizenship, even if they come from Moldova, unlike others who might be the umpteenth generation to live in East Jerusalem. If people advocating for policies favoring Greece were referred to as the Greek lobby, would anyone bat an eye? Please clarify.

“So ‘the Jews’ can hardly be said to oppose Hagel, although many individual Jews clearly do. Where does organized resistance to his nomination come from? As Jennifer Rubin observes, it’s largely a product of the Christian Zionist movement.”

Ah, and so—utterly and inexplicably unlike what we’ve so spectacularly and openly seen so far—what will seem to be the future “organized resistance” that we’ll see towards Hagel will in the main not be of the sort calling or impugning or hinting that he’s an anti-semite, but instead will be directed to his attitude towards Christians.

Total nonsense. It is Jewish money, major Jewish organizations, and Jewish access to the media that are at the heart of the opposition to Hagel. The usual strident voices a la Foxman and Harris are only holding back a little because they realize that it exposes them to the charge of dual loyalty in such a way that even the hoi polloi might start to figure out what is going on.

Mr. Goldman, though only implicitly, makes an important distinction between a “Jewish lobby” and the Israel lobby. Many of the commenters, including, to my great surprise, Mr. Giraldi, seem to miss this.

Mr. Giraldi is quite right, of course, that “Jewish money, major Jewish organizations, and Jewish access to the media” are part and parcel of the opposition to anything the U.S. does that might conceivably cause the slightest inconvenience to Israel.

Mr. Goldman, however, is right to point out that this no longer warrants describing the treasonous power bloc as a “Jewish lobby”, since it no longer represents the majority of American Jews, is arguably not predominantly Jewish (or at least not American Jewish), and certainly has a very important and influential Christian component in the U.S. Most Republicans, and many Democrats, grovel to that Christian component as readily, as openly, and as frequently, as they grovel to Israel.

As Mr. Goldman notes, the exit polls from the last election indicate that 70% of American Jews voted for Obama. That’s about 70% of American Jews who, at least when push comes to shove, don’t put the interests of Israel above those of the U.S. Of course, this also suggests that the other 30% still do (barring any who may have preferred Romney for purely economic reasons). A large part of that 30%, however, is probably an easily distinguishable subgroup: Hasidim (with the less numerous Haredi), who live mainly in a few large metro areas and who neither respect not get along well with other Jews.

It should be pointed out also that “Jewish money, major Jewish organizations, and Jewish access to the media” includes Israeli money and media access, applied either directly or through American organizations. Israeli influence of various kinds is also applied directly to all branches of the U.S. government. So the disproportionate influence of these factors need not be laid at the door of American Jews in general.

All this means that “Jewish lobby” really is no longer a good descriptor. “Israel lobby” or “Zionist lobby” will serve much better–along with, perhaps, “Millennial lobby” for the Christian component. Why antagonize American Jews who are antagonistic to Israel’s influence in the U.S.? Why make them whipping boys for religiously motivated treason by Christians?

Or perhaps that last question answers itself. There’s still considerable reluctance to recognize that Biblical Christianity is a major part of the problem. (And has been since the beginning of Zionism.)

Paleo talking points still haven’t caught up to the situation Goldman describes: Republicans and mainstream conservatives speak for Christians on Israel, not for Jews. Most paleos who pride themselves on being independent thinkers are just thoughtlessly echoing talking points they hear from others.

AndrewB, the expression “Jewish Lobby” is inaccurate because the Israel lobby (in Walt and Mearsheimer’s sense) is largely Christian; the lobby isn’t a few wily Jews manipulating their useful Christian idiots. Depending on how the phrase “Jewish Lobby” is used, it can be distasteful as well as inaccurate.

I’m amazed that Steve Sailer hasn’t heard of CUFI. Also, I don’t think dogs and tails are an accurate way to think about broad-based religious organizations. Ideologically and politically useful, but not accurate.

Dave, re Birthright: 200,000 is actually a small number. Goldman is right and you are wrong. Going to Israel and speaking Hebrew don’t indicate identification with Israel. Younger American Jews identify much less with Israel than do older Jews.

The Jewish Week writes that Jewish Groups are softening resistance on Hagel.They’re writing that the shift on Hagel in some Jewish corners may be enough to give the 11 Jewish senators room to support Hagel, or at least to not oppose him.

Now I get it. Hagel is an Episcopalian. Being from Nebraska, a rather dumpy ecclesiastical backwater, and living around DC, becoming more theologically radical every day, he probably doesn’t believe in heaven or hell anymore, much less the literal sense of scripture. A sitting duck for the fundamentalist critique. How can good Catholics join with this brand of Christianity, just because he wants to tear down the Christian Right and morally disarm this nation ?

“So ‘the Jews’ can hardly be said to oppose Hagel, although many individual Jews clearly do. Where does organized resistance to his nomination come from? As Jennifer Rubin observes, it’s largely a product of the Christian Zionist movement.”

Wait a minute though: In support of this and in just a paragraph prior Sam cited some perceived neutrality about Hagel on the part of the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.

But commenter “Clint” has noted a statement from Abe Foxman of the first organization that’s far from neutral.

And just one lousy *day* before Jennifer Rubin was trying to lay it at the feet of the Christian Zionists she wrote in her blog (under the headline “More Trouble For Hagel”) that the American Jewish Committee “has signaled it opposes the potential nomination,” which it clearly did.

So … what of those two examples that led Sam to embrace Ms. Rubin’s view?

And what of the Republican Jewish Coalition which has absolutely blasted Hagel?

And what of what Pajama Media blogger Bryan Preston calls the “serious concerns” about Hagel that have been voiced by …

The Simon Wiesenthal Center
The Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors
JINSA
The Zionist Organization of America?

(With ZOA head Morton Klein in fact bragging to the Daily Beast about having spent his time recently calling up the leaders of several Jewish groups to “rustle up” opposition to Hagel.)

And what of the Jewish Daily Forward’s reporting that The Israel Project’s new President and CEO Josh Block “has also been active in circulating material highlighting opposition to Hagel due to his record on Israel”?

It’s sort of funny then that one can’t even accuse Ms. Rubin of issuing the unsupported statements that lawyers call “ipse dixits,” not only because far from being unsupported they are massively contradicted, but indeed contradicted by the mere one-day old reporting of Ms. Rubin herself.

To highlight an important but little understood distinction within evangelical theology: both progressive dispensationalists (in contrast to “Christian Zionists”) and many covenant premillenialists see the final, national restoration of Israel to Christ occurring after the Second Coming — not before. Therefore, these camps — like some sects of chasidic Judaism — not only do not see the present Tel Aviv regime as a “fulfillment” of biblical prophecy, but actually oppose many of its policies on moral grounds.

For example,

“Some [Christians] have publicly advocated carte blanche support for any policy enacted by the state of Israel. But if political policies uphold injustice, how can Christians support it? How can Jewish or Gentile Christians today support Israeli injustices when Jewish prophets in the Old Testament condemned the authorities in Jerusalem for similar injustices, often to the prophets own peril?”
~ Craig Blaising (Provost at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), Progressive Dispensationalism p. 296.

The bizarre eschatology of the non-denoms gives me the creeps. Most of the Jews I know feel likewise. So far, I agree with Sam.

But most of this article was confusing based on my Jewish freinds’ statements to me.

By the way, I live right in the middle of one of the largest Orthodox communities in the U.S. — Cleveland Heights / University Heights / Beachwood, Ohio. Also, I am bankruptcy lawyer, so the majority of my professional peers are Jewish.

Most of my neighbors are militantly pro-Israel, but also fiercely Democratic and support Obama. Which is… um, crazy to me.

Oddly, the Republican Jews I know tend to be youngish, and of the Josh Mandel variety. (Mandel is from Beachwood.)

/ Hi Samuel. Found this web item. BTW, if Hagee etc. really love Jews, why do they pray for a pretrib rapture instead of wanting to be on earth to comfort Jews during earth’s last Jewish holocaust? /

PRETRIB RAPTURE STEALTH !

Many evangelicals believe that Christ will “rapture” them to heaven years before the second coming and (most importantly) well BEFORE Antichrist and his “tribulation.” But Acts 2:34, 35 reveal that Jesus is at the Father’s right hand in heaven until He leaves to destroy His earthly foes at the second coming. And Acts 3:21 says that Jesus “must” stay in heaven with the Father “until the times of restitution of all things” which includes, says Scofield, “the restoration of the theocracy under David’s Son” which obviously can’t begin before or during Antichrist’s reign. (“The Rapture Question,” by the long time No. 1 pretrib authority John Walvoord, didn’t dare to even list, in its scripture index, the above verses! They were also too hot for John Darby – the so-called “father of dispensationalism” – to list in the scripture index in his “Letters”!)
Paul explains the “times and the seasons” (I Thess. 5:1) of the catching up (I Thess. 4:17) as the “day of the Lord” (5:2) which FOLLOWS the posttrib sun/moon darkening (Matt. 24:29; Acts 2:20) WHEN “sudden destruction” (5:3) of the wicked occurs! The “rest” for “all them that believe” is also tied to such destruction in II Thess. 1:6-10! (If the wicked are destroyed before or during the trib, who’d be left alive to serve the Antichrist?) Paul also ties the change-into-immortality “rapture” (I Cor. 15:52) to the end of trib “death” (15:54). (Will death be ended before or during the trib? Of course not! And vs. 54 is also tied to Isa. 25:8 which Scofield views as Israel’s posttrib resurrection!) It’s amazing that the Olivet Discourse contains the “great commission” for the church but not even a hint of a pretrib rapture for the church!
Many don’t know that before 1830 all Christians had always viewed I Thess. 4’s “catching up” as an integral part of the final second coming to earth. In 1830 this “rapture” was stretched forward and turned into an idolized separate coming of Christ. To further strengthen their novel view, which evangelical scholars overwhelmingly rejected throughout the 1800s, pretrib teachers in the early 1900s began to stretch forward the “day of the Lord” (what Darby and Scofield never dared to do) and hook it up with their already-stretched-forward “rapture.” Many leading evangelical scholars still weren’t convinced of pretrib, so pretrib teachers then began teaching that the “falling away” of II Thess. 2:3 is really a pretrib rapture (the same as saying that the “rapture” in 2:3 must happen before the “rapture” [“gathering”] in 2:1 can happen – the height of desperation!). Google “Walvoord Melts Ice” for more on this.
Other Google articles on the 183-year-old pretrib rapture view include “X-Raying Margaret,” “Margaret Macdonald’s Rapture Chart,” “Pretrib Rapture’s Missing Lines,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “The Unoriginal John Darby,” “Catholics Did NOT Invent the Rapture,” “The Real Manuel Lacunza,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Wily Jeffrey,” “The Rapture Index (Mad Theology),” “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers,” “Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism,” “Scholars Weigh My Research,” “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” “Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal,” “Pretrib Rapture Secrecy,” “Deceiving and Being Deceived,” “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty,” “Famous Rapture Watchers,” and “Morgan Edwards’ Rapture View” – most by the author of the bestselling book “The Rapture Plot” (the most accurate and documented book on pretrib rapture history which is obtainable by calling 800.643.4645).